The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: disputeone on February 07, 2018, 07:42:43 PM
-
Flat Earth Conspiracy DEBUNKED – Scam to Distract from the True conspiracy theories. You can test this yourself, without having to go to outer space. This theory is a distraction from the most serious and consequential issues on planet earth today. The earth is not flat.
-
Bread and circus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative". Juvenal, who originated the phrase, used it to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.[5]
-
Flat Earth Conspiracy DEBUNKED – Scam to Distract from the True conspiracy theories. You can test this yourself, without having to go to outer space. This theory is a distraction from the most serious and consequential issues on planet earth today. The earth is not flat.
The 'disappearing from the bottom up' is one of the oldest rebuttals against FE and has been disproven many times in many ways. This doesn't debunk FE.
I can believe in FE and in other conspiracies. My capacity for conspiracy isn't even filled at all by FE, since I don't believe it is a conspiracy.
-
The 'disappearing from the bottom up' is one of the oldest rebuttals against FE and has been disproven many times in many ways. This doesn't debunk FE.
You mean one of the oldest proofs for a RE.
I am yet to see it be honestly debunked.
Instead FEers will often use very distant horizons and small objects to say things disappear from view by appearing to small and then using telescopes or zoom lenses to bring it back into view.
I am yet to see them show an example of something disappearing over the horizon, disappearing from the bottom up (as everything large enough does) and then magically being brought back into view.
The best they can come up with is magic bendy light or blatant lies about perspective, such as conman Row Boat pretending the curvature of Earth is really just magic perspective, using observations from Earth along with a baseless claim that Earth is flat to claim perspective makes the bottom of objects disappear, and thus it doesn't show Earth is round.
If you think it has been refuted, feel free to provide an example.
-
If you think it has been refuted, feel free to provide an example.
My explanation for why a boat goes down bottom-first over the horizon is because it is behaving as it should on the surface of something which has the properties of a sphere.
-
If you think it has been refuted, feel free to provide an example.
My explanation for why a boat goes down bottom-first over the horizon is because it is behaving as it should on the surface of something which has the properties of a sphere.
Maybe like a sphere?
-
My explanation for why a boat goes down bottom-first over the horizon is because it is behaving as it should on the surface of something which has the properties of a sphere.
Maybe like a sphere?
Yes, a sphere would be one example.
-
High sea waves cannot be seen by those wearing rayban ~
-
My explanation for why a boat goes down bottom-first over the horizon is because it is behaving as it should on the surface of something which has the properties of a sphere.
i.e. because Earth is not flat.
As such, this does not refute the argument against Earth being flat.
Ships disappearing over the horizon remains a disproof of a flat Earth.
-
My explanation for why a boat goes down bottom-first over the horizon is because it is behaving as it should on the surface of something which has the properties of a sphere.
i.e. because Earth is not flat.
A finite sector of a sufficiently large circle has the properties of a straight line. Is it a straight line?
A red apple has some of the properties of a cardboard cutout of a red apple. Is it a cardboard cutout of a red apple?
A cylinder has the same Gaussian properties as a flat sheet. Is it a flat sheet?
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
-
A finite sector of a sufficiently large circle has the properties of a straight line. Is it a straight line?
No. It approximates the properties of a straight line.
In order for it to actually have the properties of a straight line it would need to have an infinite radius, i.e. a curvature of 1/infinity, i.e. 0. In that case it is a straight line, not a circle.
A straight line is the limit of a circle as its radius tends to infinity.
A cylinder has the same Gaussian properties as a flat sheet. Is it a flat sheet?
In the mathematical sense, yes, it is flat as it has 0 Gaussian curvature.
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
But as you needed to appeal to the specific properties which mean it is round, it does.
You didn't appeal to it having water, or it having land or anything like that.
You appealed to it being spherical.
That means it is not flat.
Not even non-Euclidean geometry can save you here.
-
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
But as you needed to appeal to the specific properties which mean it is round, it does.
You didn't appeal to it having water, or it having land or anything like that.
You appealed to it being spherical.
That means it is not flat.
So if I say a cardboard cutout of an apple is red just like an apple, since I'm appealing to the specific properties of an apple, my cardboard cutout is magically an apple?
I appealed to it behaving in some ways like it is spherical.
-
My explanation for why a boat goes down bottom-first over the horizon is because it is behaving as it should on the surface of something which has the properties of a sphere.
i.e. because Earth is not flat.
A finite sector of a sufficiently large circle has the properties of a straight line. Is it a straight line?
A red apple has some of the properties of a cardboard cutout of a red apple. Is it a cardboard cutout of a red apple?
A cylinder has the same Gaussian properties as a flat sheet. Is it a flat sheet?
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
What if your apple is an orange?
Can you explain my haunted keyboard?
-
Soooo basically, you know the earth is flat but behaves like a sphere but is flat because you know it is flat even though it has the properties of a sphere.
Am I right so far?
-
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
But as you needed to appeal to the specific properties which mean it is round, it does.
You didn't appeal to it having water, or it having land or anything like that.
You appealed to it being spherical.
That means it is not flat.
So if I say a cardboard cutout of an apple is red just like an apple, since I'm appealing to the specific properties of an apple, my cardboard cutout is magically an apple?
I appealed to it behaving in some ways like it is spherical.
Reread what you wrote.
Then ask yourself: 'On a scale from 1 to 10, how dumb am I?'
Then act accordingly (meaning: better keep quiet and read a physics book).
-
Soooo basically, you know the earth is flat but behaves like a sphere but is flat because you know it is flat even though it has the properties of a sphere.
Am I right so far?
That's a pretty accurate summation of it, honestly.
-
My explanation for why a boat goes down bottom-first over the horizon is because it is behaving as it should on the surface of something which has the properties of a sphere.
i.e. because Earth is not flat.
A finite sector of a sufficiently large circle has the properties of a straight line. Is it a straight line?
A red apple has some of the properties of a cardboard cutout of a red apple. Is it a cardboard cutout of a red apple?
A cylinder has the same Gaussian properties as a flat sheet. Is it a flat sheet?
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
Actually, the Earth shares all the properties of a round Earth.
Point out one that it doesn't.
High sea waves cannot be seen by those wearing rayban ~
The thing about high sea waves is that they're caused by high winds or other inclement weather (or, you know, tsunamis from earthquakes, but pretty sure they aren't too common). On a clear, calm day, where you can see the water is smooth, boats still disappear over the horizon.
Here's a good image of a yacht race, where the competitors are hull-down over the horizon. Smooth ocean, no big waves. but all you can see is sails.
http://northbeachinn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/200.jpg
-
Actually, the Earth shares all the properties of a round Earth.
Point out one that it doesn't.
I'm more than happy to. If you want, I'd be eager to discuss this with you in another thread with that topic, rather than derailing this one. Would you like me to create the thread, or shall you?
-
Actually, the Earth shares all the properties of a round Earth.
Point out one that it doesn't.
I'm more than happy to. If you want, I'd be eager to discuss this with you in another thread with that topic, rather than derailing this one. Would you like me to create the thread, or shall you?
You do it. Then post a link to it here, please.
-
So if I say a cardboard cutout of an apple is red just like an apple, since I'm appealing to the specific properties of an apple, my cardboard cutout is magically an apple?
I appealed to it behaving in some ways like it is spherical.
There you go ignoring what I said.
Notice how in that example you are appealing to the red, the colour.
In the example for the horizon you appealed to the curve.
If it didn't need to be curved, why say spherical?
If it was other properties of a round Earth, other than it being round, you wouldn't have appealed to round.
But you didn't even appeal to it sharing properties with a round Earth.
You appealed to it having properties of a spherical surface, i.e. a round surface.
You are saying Earth has the properties of a sphere.
That means it is round.
If you don't think that, just what property are you referring to?
Especially as the one which explains why objects drop below the horizon in all directions is the curvature.
-
Actually, the Earth shares all the properties of a round Earth.
Point out one that it doesn't.
I'm more than happy to. If you want, I'd be eager to discuss this with you in another thread with that topic, rather than derailing this one. Would you like me to create the thread, or shall you?
Thread created here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=10.0).
-
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
But as you needed to appeal to the specific properties which mean it is round, it does.
You didn't appeal to it having water, or it having land or anything like that.
You appealed to it being spherical.
That means it is not flat.
So if I say a cardboard cutout of an apple is red just like an apple, since I'm appealing to the specific properties of an apple, my cardboard cutout is magically an apple?
I appealed to it behaving in some ways like it is spherical.
You realize the color red is not an inherent, exclusive property of apples right? The correct analogy would be more like the cardboard cutout having the taste and texture of an apple. You don't happen to have a cardboard cutout of an apple that tastes and feels like an apple do you?
Claiming the Earth is flat, but has the properties of a sphere when necessary is basically like handing someone an apple and telling them it is actually cardboard, but has all the taste, feel, and nutrition of an apple, and is physically indistinguishable from an actual apple. In other words, it's an apple and you're engaging in a pointless metaphysical exercise that doesn't have any bearing on reality.
-
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
But as you needed to appeal to the specific properties which mean it is round, it does.
You didn't appeal to it having water, or it having land or anything like that.
You appealed to it being spherical.
That means it is not flat.
So if I say a cardboard cutout of an apple is red just like an apple, since I'm appealing to the specific properties of an apple, my cardboard cutout is magically an apple?
I appealed to it behaving in some ways like it is spherical.
You realize the color red is not an inherent, exclusive property of apples right?
Nor is curvature an exclusive property of spheres.
Claiming the Earth is flat, but has the properties of a sphere when necessary is basically like handing someone an apple and telling them it is actually cardboard, but has all the taste, feel, and nutrition of an apple, and is physically indistinguishable from an actual apple. In other words, it's an apple and you're engaging in a pointless metaphysical exercise that doesn't have any bearing on reality.
Unless the scientific evidence suggests it could be an apple, but equally it could be cardboard, in which case I'd choose to believe it was cardboard because handing someone a cardboard apple to eat is hilarious.
-
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
But as you needed to appeal to the specific properties which mean it is round, it does.
You didn't appeal to it having water, or it having land or anything like that.
You appealed to it being spherical.
That means it is not flat.
So if I say a cardboard cutout of an apple is red just like an apple, since I'm appealing to the specific properties of an apple, my cardboard cutout is magically an apple?
I appealed to it behaving in some ways like it is spherical.
You realize the color red is not an inherent, exclusive property of apples right?
Nor is curvature an exclusive property of spheres.
Claiming the Earth is flat, but has the properties of a sphere when necessary is basically like handing someone an apple and telling them it is actually cardboard, but has all the taste, feel, and nutrition of an apple, and is physically indistinguishable from an actual apple. In other words, it's an apple and you're engaging in a pointless metaphysical exercise that doesn't have any bearing on reality.
Unless the scientific evidence suggests it could be an apple, but equally it could be cardboard, in which case I'd choose to believe it was cardboard because handing someone a cardboard apple to eat is hilarious.
If you look at an apple from some distance, let's say 50cm, does it look like an apple?
Edit: What shape do you suggest for the earth?
-
If you look at an apple from some distance, let's say 50cm, does it look like an apple?
Well, I can never be 100% sure I'm even looking at an apple in the first place. I could be living in a computer simulation.
But yes, it does look like an apple to me.
EDIT: Flat
-
But what if it looks like a cake, but isn't?
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/001/707/thecakeisalie.jpg)
-
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
But as you needed to appeal to the specific properties which mean it is round, it does.
You didn't appeal to it having water, or it having land or anything like that.
You appealed to it being spherical.
That means it is not flat.
So if I say a cardboard cutout of an apple is red just like an apple, since I'm appealing to the specific properties of an apple, my cardboard cutout is magically an apple?
I appealed to it behaving in some ways like it is spherical.
You realize the color red is not an inherent, exclusive property of apples right?
Nor is curvature an exclusive property of spheres.
It is when the set of possibilities is reduced to planes and spheres, like say in an argument about whether the Earth is flat or spherical.
-
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
But as you needed to appeal to the specific properties which mean it is round, it does.
You didn't appeal to it having water, or it having land or anything like that.
You appealed to it being spherical.
That means it is not flat.
So if I say a cardboard cutout of an apple is red just like an apple, since I'm appealing to the specific properties of an apple, my cardboard cutout is magically an apple?
I appealed to it behaving in some ways like it is spherical.
You realize the color red is not an inherent, exclusive property of apples right?
Nor is curvature an exclusive property of spheres.
It is when the set of possibilities is reduced to planes and spheres, like say in an argument about whether the Earth is flat or spherical.
Just like how the colour red is an exclusive property of apples when the set of possibilities is reduced to apples and cardboard apples, like say in an argument about whether I'm eating an apple or a cardboard apple.
-
What shape do you suggest for the earth?
-
What shape do you suggest for the earth?
Flat.
-
HEY PUNK, MAKE MY DAY, PROVE ME WRONG :
While watching this video you will understand what is the purpose of FLAT EARTH movement (psyop designed and activated by those who want to discredit geocentrism))!
-
HEY PUNK, MAKE MY DAY, PROVE ME WRONG :
While watching this video you will understand what is the purpose of FLAT EARTH movement (psyop designed and activated by those who want to discredit geocentrism))!
The stars argument doesn't debunk flat Earth either.
Also, geocentrism discredits itself. It doesn't need any help from us.
-
HEY PUNK, MAKE MY DAY, PROVE ME WRONG :
While watching this video you will understand what is the purpose of FLAT EARTH movement (psyop designed and activated by those who want to discredit geocentrism))!
The stars argument doesn't debunk flat Earth either.
Also, geocentrism discredits itself. It doesn't need any help from us.
You have no idea what you are talking about :
The earth is spherically shaped and stationary.
1. A SET OF ROUND-EARTH ARGUMENTS :
A) Southern circumpolar stars
B) Time zones
C) Path of the sun during southern summer (which is inconsistent with flat-earth paradigm)
D) Antarctic midnight sun phenomena (which is real)
E) The sun follows perfectly straight line above the equator during equinoxes
F) Scott and Amundsen used astronavigation to determine the exact location of the south pole
G) During the full moon the sun and the moon are always in opposition, and that is the fact -- This proof is very simple and irrefutable, unless someone is able to prove that there are two suns in the sky...While the sun sets SOUTH of Lemaire channel (that is to say SOUTH of Cape Horn), the same sun in the same time is visible almost directly NORTH of South West Australia and almost directly SOUTH of this area : Japan/Korea/China... So it is NOON in Japan and Australia and THE MIDNIGHT SUN is visible for the observer in Lemaire channel which is directly SOUTH of Cape Horn...So, an observer who is positioned in Lemaire channel is able to see the setting sun by looking straight to the south, and that same sun is visible for the observers in Korea and China who are looking also towards south, and that same sun is visible for the observer in Australia who is looking towards North!!! Do you see why is this impossible to happen on the flat earth??? On a flat earth the full moon would be between an observer in Lemaire channel and the setting sun, which means that an observer in Lemarie channel would have to watch towards NORTH in order to see the sun which would be at the double distance than the full moon, however observer is seeing the full moon by looking to the NORTH, and the setting MIDNIGHT sun is visible in the SOUTH direction!!! There is simply no way around this - (ACCOMPANYING VIDEO : "Eric Dumbay's 201st proof-make it viral or stay dumb" :)
H) If the earth were flat, the flat earth map SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY EASY to make. Many have tried already, and all of them terribly failed. How hard is to infer (correctly) why no one can draw functional flat earth map WITH ABSOLUTE EASINESS on the flat sheet of paper??? If the earth is flat and flat sheet of paper is also flat all you have to deal with is to scale down the real face of the earth, isn't that so???
I) The earth can't be way bigger spherical object since from the North Pole to the equator is 10 000 km, however if the earth were flat then the distance from the North Pole to the equator would be 6369 km. - There are 90 degrees of distance from the equator to the North Pole. Each degree has 60 minutes, each minute = 1 nautical mile, therefore 60 x 90 = 5,400 nautical miles = 10 000 km. Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?
J) And lastly, but not least (the question which i am bringing forward to my former flat-earth mates - IN VAIN) : Tell me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent western scientist (who was born in the last 2500 years) who believed that the earth is flat? Can you imagine conspiracy of that scale? Is the conspiracy of such magnitude even possible, what do you think?
K) A challenge to all flat-earthers (brought forward before them many times in last few months - NO ANSWER FROM THEM WHATSOEVER (SO FAR) - IT FIGURES!!!) : PROVE ME WRONG AND I AM GOING TO SHUT DOWN MY CHANNEL RIGHT AWAY!!! :)
CONCLUSION : The earth is 100 % stationary, but the earth isn't flat!
2. HAVE YOU WATCHED THESE VIDEOS (MUST SEE) :
ERIC DUMBAY's 201st PROOF-make it viral or stay dumb :
ERIC DUMBAY's 202nd proof-make it viral or stay dumb :
ERIC DUMBAY's 203rd proof-make it viral or stay dumb - part 1 :
-
HEY PUNK, MAKE MY DAY, PROVE ME WRONG :
While watching this video you will understand what is the purpose of FLAT EARTH movement (psyop designed and activated by those who want to discredit geocentrism))!
The stars argument doesn't debunk flat Earth either.
Also, geocentrism discredits itself. It doesn't need any help from us.
You have no idea what you are talking about :
The earth is spherically shaped and stationary.
1. A SET OF ROUND-EARTH ARGUMENTS :
A) Southern circumpolar stars
B) Time zones
C) Path of the sun during southern summer (which is inconsistent with flat-earth paradigm)
D) Antarctic midnight sun phenomena (which is real)
E) The sun follows perfectly straight line above the equator during equinoxes
F) Scott and Amundsen used astronavigation to determine the exact location of the south pole
G) During the full moon the sun and the moon are always in opposition, and that is the fact -- This proof is very simple and irrefutable, unless someone is able to prove that there are two suns in the sky...While the sun sets SOUTH of Lemaire channel (that is to say SOUTH of Cape Horn), the same sun in the same time is visible almost directly NORTH of South West Australia and almost directly SOUTH of this area : Japan/Korea/China... So it is NOON in Japan and Australia and THE MIDNIGHT SUN is visible for the observer in Lemaire channel which is directly SOUTH of Cape Horn...So, an observer who is positioned in Lemaire channel is able to see the setting sun by looking straight to the south, and that same sun is visible for the observers in Korea and China who are looking also towards south, and that same sun is visible for the observer in Australia who is looking towards North!!! Do you see why is this impossible to happen on the flat earth??? On a flat earth the full moon would be between an observer in Lemaire channel and the setting sun, which means that an observer in Lemarie channel would have to watch towards NORTH in order to see the sun which would be at the double distance than the full moon, however observer is seeing the full moon by looking to the NORTH, and the setting MIDNIGHT sun is visible in the SOUTH direction!!! There is simply no way around this - (ACCOMPANYING VIDEO : "Eric Dumbay's 201st proof-make it viral or stay dumb" :)
H) If the earth were flat, the flat earth map SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY EASY to make. Many have tried already, and all of them terribly failed. How hard is to infer (correctly) why no one can draw functional flat earth map WITH ABSOLUTE EASINESS on the flat sheet of paper??? If the earth is flat and flat sheet of paper is also flat all you have to deal with is to scale down the real face of the earth, isn't that so???
I) The earth can't be way bigger spherical object since from the North Pole to the equator is 10 000 km, however if the earth were flat then the distance from the North Pole to the equator would be 6369 km. - There are 90 degrees of distance from the equator to the North Pole. Each degree has 60 minutes, each minute = 1 nautical mile, therefore 60 x 90 = 5,400 nautical miles = 10 000 km. Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?
J) And lastly, but not least (the question which i am bringing forward to my former flat-earth mates - IN VAIN) : Tell me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent western scientist (who was born in the last 2500 years) who believed that the earth is flat? Can you imagine conspiracy of that scale? Is the conspiracy of such magnitude even possible, what do you think?
K) A challenge to all flat-earthers (brought forward before them many times in last few months - NO ANSWER FROM THEM WHATSOEVER (SO FAR) - IT FIGURES!!!) : PROVE ME WRONG AND I AM GOING TO SHUT DOWN MY CHANNEL RIGHT AWAY!!! :)
CONCLUSION : The earth is 100 % stationary, but the earth isn't flat!
2. HAVE YOU WATCHED THESE VIDEOS (MUST SEE) :
ERIC DUMBAY's 201st PROOF-make it viral or stay dumb :
ERIC DUMBAY's 202nd proof-make it viral or stay dumb :
ERIC DUMBAY's 203rd proof-make it viral or stay dumb - part 1 :
None of these debunk flat Earth either.
-
It's always fun watching flat earthers and geocentrists argue about who is wrong.
(Hint: It's both of you.)
P.S. - @Tessa - Cardboard can be red. Planes can't be spheres.
-
P.S. - @Tessa - Cardboard can be red. Planes can't be spheres.
I've never seen intrinsically red cardboard before. I have seen extrinsically curved planes though.
-
What shape do you suggest for the earth?
Flat.
A curvature doesn't prove a sphere.
But a curvature does disprove a flat object.
Next guess, please (hint: try 'globe' or 'sphere')
-
What shape do you suggest for the earth?
Flat.
A curvature doesn't prove a sphere.
But a curvature does disprove a flat object.
No, it doesn't.
I'm not 'guessing', I have evidence, same as you. Evidence that I've outlined in my Earth Romanticism thread.
-
What shape do you suggest for the earth?
Flat.
A curvature doesn't prove a sphere.
But a curvature does disprove a flat object.
No, it doesn't.
Wrong.
-
What shape do you suggest for the earth?
Flat.
A curvature doesn't prove a sphere.
But a curvature does disprove a flat object.
No, it doesn't.
Wrong.
Evidence, please.
I'll provide counter evidence:
Curvature within the universe is meaningless if the universe itself is information encoded on a 2D surface, a branch of string theory I mentioned in my Earth Romanticism thread. There are many other examples I could provide along similar lines, all current scientific theories or ideas being explored. So I can have my cake and eat it too.
Now please provide your evidence to support your assertion.
-
What shape do you suggest for the earth?
Flat.
A curvature doesn't prove a sphere.
But a curvature does disprove a flat object.
No, it doesn't.
Wrong.
Evidence, please.
I'll provide counter evidence:
Curvature within the universe is meaningless if the universe itself is information encoded on a 2D surface, a branch of string theory I mentioned in my Earth Romanticism thread. There are many other examples I could provide along similar lines, all current scientific theories or ideas being explored. So I can have my cake and eat it too.
Now please provide your evidence to support your assertion.
Yeah and we probably all live in an alien simulation.
Get real, kiddo.
Also, you should probably talk to an actual physicist. He might want to explain you how you're wrong.
-
Yeah and we probably all live in an alien simulation.
Get real, kiddo.
Have you read my Earth Romanticism thread? Yes, we are probably in a simulation.
Also, you should probably talk to an actual physicist. He might want to explain you how you're wrong.
Please, explain how string theory is wrong.
Also, I notice you haven't provided evidence for your claim.
-
Have you read my Earth Romanticism thread? Yes, we are probably in a simulation.
Lol, pathetic. I haven't and I'm not going to read your gibberish.
Please, explain how string theory is wrong.
Stringtheory isn't even a theory, it's a combination of some hypothesis. It's basically phantasy. Also it doesn't make the earth flat. You're confusing magnitudes.
As I said, go talk to a physicist, he might explain you things.
-
Have you read my Earth Romanticism thread? Yes, we are probably in a simulation.
Lol, pathetic. I haven't and I'm not going to read your gibberish.
Then you'll have to accept me ignoring some of your points as I've dealt with them there.
Stringtheory isn't even a theory
What's in a name, anyway?
As I said, go talk to a physicist, he might explain you things.
A physicist will tell me string theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) is a theory, a physicist will tell me the possible resolutions of the information paradox (http://V), a physicist will concur that we don't know enough about the universe to conclusively state that we aren't information encoded on a 2D surface (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle). Because a phycisist developed and explored all these things.
For the second time, I notice you haven't provided any evidence for any of your assertions.
-
[...] will concur that we don't know enough about the universe to conclusively state that we aren't
It doesn't even matter. If everything was encoded in 2d (or 1d or 0d or whatever) the earth ist still 'coded' as a globe, and not a flat plane. You know, with 0 and 1 in a simulation you can create a simulated 3d object. So even if you think we're in a simulation or everything is encoded in 2d, from our point of view, within this simulation, the earth is a globe, and not flat. And there is no way to definitely conclude whether everything might be encoded in some other dimension; so best we can do is use our point of view. In which the earth is a globe, and definitely not flat.
-
[...] will concur that we don't know enough about the universe to conclusively state that we aren't
It doesn't even matter. If everything was encoded in 2d (or 1d or 0d or whatever) the earth ist still 'coded' as a globe, and not a flat plane. You know, with 0 and 1 in a simulation you can create a simulated 3d object. So even if you think we're in a simulation or everything is encoded in 2d, from our point of view, within this simulation, the earth is a globe, and not flat. And there is no way to definitely conclude whether everything might be encoded in some other dimension; so best we can do is use our point of view. In which the earth is a globe, and definitely not flat.
Again, I explain in Earth Romanticism why my method for determining how to describe the Earth is different to the one scientists should (for the most part, anyway, as some will be studying these fields) use. Put simply, I want to honour the wonder of science by embracing its weirdness, so when presented with a choice of belief which is equally supported (i.e. neither choice disproved and both explored in science), and which will not affect how I live my life, I choose to believe the weirder option.
-
Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.
But as you needed to appeal to the specific properties which mean it is round, it does.
You didn't appeal to it having water, or it having land or anything like that.
You appealed to it being spherical.
That means it is not flat.
So if I say a cardboard cutout of an apple is red just like an apple, since I'm appealing to the specific properties of an apple, my cardboard cutout is magically an apple?
I appealed to it behaving in some ways like it is spherical.
You realize the color red is not an inherent, exclusive property of apples right? The correct analogy would be more like the cardboard cutout having the taste and texture of an apple. You don't happen to have a cardboard cutout of an apple that tastes and feels like an apple do you?
Claiming the Earth is flat, but has the properties of a sphere when necessary is basically like handing someone an apple and telling them it is actually cardboard, but has all the taste, feel, and nutrition of an apple, and is physically indistinguishable from an actual apple. In other words, it's an apple and you're engaging in a pointless metaphysical exercise that doesn't have any bearing on reality.
From the point of view of a photon the earth is very flat. In fact, it would have no depth. The start and finish lines from any point to point in the universe would be on top of each other. So yes, the Earth can be flat whilst having the properties of a globe. It depends on your perspective
Also, there are theories that we could be a 3D projection from a 2D universe.
Also if we are in a simulation, is our source any shape at all?
At least Tessa Yuri thinks outside the box. You seem content to be caged in your dim world view
-
Nor is curvature an exclusive property of spheres.
That's right. But spheres have a particular curvature which is what matches Earth (technically it is slightly off, but it is a good approximation).
Regardless, the simple fact is that curvature is the key property which distinguishes a spherical (or round) Earth from a flat one.
If you weren't appealing to the curvature of a sphere, what property where you appealing to?
Unless the scientific evidence suggests it could be an apple, but equally it could be cardboard, in which case I'd choose to believe it was cardboard because handing someone a cardboard apple to eat is hilarious.
Good thing it doesn't, just like the scientific evidence doesn't suggest it could be flat or round.
Just like how the colour red is an exclusive property of apples when the set of possibilities is reduced to apples and cardboard apples, like say in an argument about whether I'm eating an apple or a cardboard apple.
No it's not.
Cardboard apples can be red. Real apples can be red.
As such, that is not an exclude property of either.
Instead the exclusive property is that the apple is fruit with flesh and seeds, while the cardboard is primarily cellulose.
The stars argument doesn't debunk flat Earth either.
Also, geocentrism discredits itself. It doesn't need any help from us.
The existence of 2 celestial poles, always 180 degrees apart, does refute a FE.
Your non-flat flat Earth requires Earth to be geocentric as moving from that location in space would result in Earth being distorted.
I've never seen intrinsically red cardboard before. I have seen extrinsically curved planes though.
So?
Cardboard can be red, it can be almost any colour.
Unlike a plane, which can't be curved.
If you think you have seen extrinsically curved planes, feel free to provide evidence of one.
Curvature within the universe is meaningless if the universe itself is information encoded on a 2D surface,
That is a nice baseless claim of yours.
Got anything to back it up?
Why would information being encoded (using multiple dimensions) on a 2D surface magically make curvature meaningless?
A physicist will tell me string theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) is a theory
No. A mathematician will.
This is because string theory is a mathematical theory, not a scientific one.
There have been no tests performed to distinguish it from the null hypothesis. As such, it is not a scientific theory.
You also seem to seriously misunderstand string theory.
It doesn't say the universe is 2D.
It says it has many dimensions.
-
Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?
On the common (and still incorrect) FE model, the equator would be the path the sun takes on the equinox, when the sun rises due east and sets due west and we have roughly equal periods of day and night.
CONCLUSION : The earth is 100 % stationary, but the earth isn't flat!
No. The only conclusion from that is Earth isn't flat.
There is no indication of Earth being stationary or moving in that.
-
Flat Earth Conspiracy DEBUNKED – Scam to Distract from the True conspiracy theories. You can test this yourself, without having to go to outer space. This theory is a distraction from the most serious and consequential issues on planet earth today. The earth is not flat.
The 'disappearing from the bottom up' is one of the oldest rebuttals against FE and has been disproven many times in many ways.
No, it hasn't!
This doesn't debunk FE.
Incorrect. And they even thought that the earth was a Globe back in about 1265.THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.
SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.
Also, since water is a homogeneous body, the whole will act the same as its parts. But parts of water, as happens in the case of little drops and dew on herbs, naturally seek a round shape. Therefore, the whole, of which they are parts, will do so.
From: THE SPHERE OF SACROBOSCO, by Iohannes de Sacrobosco. (http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm)
I can believe in FE and in other conspiracies. My capacity for conspiracy isn't even filled at all by FE, since I don't believe it is a conspiracy.
No, it's not a conspiracy, just incorrect, with the modern flat earth theory "invented" by Samuel Birely Rowbotham.
But he presented a totally incorrect model for the movement of the sun, moon, planets and stars, with them circling nearby above the earth.
Again, even Iohannes de Sacrobosco has good reasons for knowing that a "celestial plane" close to the earth went against what we see.REVOLUTION OF THE HEAVENS FROM EAST TO WEST. -- That the sky revolves from east to west is signified by the fact that the stars, which rise in the east, mount gradually and successively until they reach mid-sky and are always at the same distance apart, and, thus maintaining their relative positions. they move toward their setting continuously and uniformly. Another indication is that the stars near the North Pole, which never set for us, move continuously and uniformly, describing their circles about the pole, and are always equally near or far from one another. Therefore, from those two continuous movements of the stars, both those that set and those which do not, it is clear that the firmament is moved from east to west.
THE HEAVENS SPHERICAL. -- There are three reasons why the sky is round: likeness, convenience, and necessity. Likeness, because the sensible world is made in the likeness of the archetype, in which there is neither end nor beginning; wherefore, in likeness to it the sensible world has a round shape, in which beginning or end cannot be distinguished. Convenience, because of all isoperimetric bodies the sphere is the largest and of all shapes the round is most capacious. Since largest and round, therefore the most capacious. Wherefore, since the world is all-containing, this shape was useful and convenient for it. Necessity, because if the world were of other form than round -- say, trilateral, quadrilateral, or many-sided -- it would follow that some space would be vacant and some body without a place, both of which are false, as is clear in the case of angles projecting and revolved.
A FURTHER PROOF. -- Also, as Alfraganus says, if the sky were flat, one part of it would be nearer to us than another, namely, that which is directly overhead. So when a star was there, it would be closer to us than when rising or setting. But those things which are closer to us seem larger. So the sun when in mid-sky should look larger than when rising or setting, whereas the opposite is the case; for the sun or another star looks bigger in the east or west than in mid-sky. But, since this is not really so, the reason for its seeming so is that in winter and the rainy season vapors rise between us and the sun or other star. And, since those vapors are diaphanous, they scatter our visual rays so that they do not apprehend the object in its true size, just as is the case with a penny dropped into a depth of limpid water, which appears larger than it actually is because of a like diffusion of rays.
Yes, I know that they believed in a Geocentric Universe back there.
They still, however, insisted that the celestial bodies were so far away that their sizes and spacing did not change as they appeared to move.
-
You also seem to seriously misunderstand string theory.
It doesn't say the universe is 2D.
It says it has many dimensions.
The holographic principle explains what I mean fairly well.
information encoded on a 2D surface (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle)
This doesn't debunk FE.
Incorrect. And they even thought that the earth was a Globe back in about 1265.
Actually, even the Greeks suspected the Earth was round, given its properties.
I can believe in FE and in other conspiracies. My capacity for conspiracy isn't even filled at all by FE, since I don't believe it is a conspiracy.
No, it's not a conspiracy, just incorrect, with the modern flat earth theory "invented" by Samuel Birely Rowbotham.
But he presented a totally incorrect model for the movement of the sun, moon, planets and stars, with them circling nearby above the earth.
Yeah. I know this is controversial for a FEer to say, but Rowbotham was wrong.
-
From the point of view of a photon the earth is very flat. In fact, it would have no depth. The start and finish lines from any point to point in the universe would be on top of each other.
Does a photon have a "point of view"?
But if it did, that photon might find great difficulty travelling from the North Pole to the South Pole!
It would find over 12,713 km of water, rock, magma, metals and ice in the way.
But a neutrino would have a very high probability of getting there.
So yes, the Earth can be flat whilst having the properties of a globe.
And how do you work that out?
Maybe you could try that magical day-dream of John Davis, the Ferrari Effect and he even blames the Globularists, Einstein and Leo Ferrari for it!
It depends on your perspective.
I think that you need some really funny glasses to see things in that perspective. I don't think just rose-tinted would be enough. Here, this might help: JOURNEY INTO GEOMETRIES (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=85JMttDb0YwC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=glasses+to+make+straight+lines+look+like+circles&source=bl&ots=ZDLAJQp9UX&sig=sFnt4A1WmIWnho3p-rck2YCYpy4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU187ts5fZAhWCV7wKHRsYAeoQ6AEIUDAL#v=onepage&q=glasses%20to%20make%20straight%20lines%20look%20like%20circles&f=false)
Still, in these Trumpian Days it's a case of everyone can have their own alternate facts and you seem to dream up plenty.
-
The point was if you were travelling at the speed of light, due to time no longer being a thing, literally every point in the universe is on top of each other. You could travel one end of the universe to the other instantaneously. There is no curvature to 'go around'.
-
The holographic principle explains what I mean fairly well.
No it doesn't.
In no way does it indicate Earth is flat.
It is saying the 3D universe can be represented on a 2D surface.
There is no indication that this surface is flat.
As such, it is irrelevant.
-
There is no indication that this surface is flat.
There is no indication it isn't.
The 'surface' is most often thought of as the boundary to the universe (it may not be, but it could be). How can you say that the boundary at the point where Earth is rendered is curved? You can't.
-
The point was if you were travelling at the speed of light, due to time no longer being a thing, literally every point in the universe is on top of each other. You could travel one end of the universe to the other instantaneously. There is no curvature to 'go around'.
Sure, time is no longer a thing.
But only massless objects like photons can travel at the speed of light and they certainly do not always "travel one end of the universe to the other".
If a photon strikes a material object it could travel through it but is usually either reflected or simply ceases to exist.
The photon can't "magically" travel unimpeded.
-
The point was if you were travelling at the speed of light, due to time no longer being a thing, literally every point in the universe is on top of each other. You could travel one end of the universe to the other instantaneously. There is no curvature to 'go around'.
Sure, time is no longer a thing.
But only massless objects like photons can travel at the speed of light and they certainly do not always "travel one end of the universe to the other".
If a photon strikes a material object it could travel through it but is usually either reflected or simply ceases to exist.
The photon can't "magically" travel unimpeded.
You are missing the point. I use photon as an example because everyone is familiar with them and because they travel at a speed where time is no longer part of the equation. Obviously it is likely there will be obstacles in their way across the universe, but every possible point to point anywhere in the universe the photon from its own 'perspective' takes zero time to get there. For failing to grasp such a simple concept and theory I'm afraid I'll have to add you to my signature too.
-
There is no indication it isn't.
Sure there is. This boundary is in every direction.
i.e. it curves around us.
There is no indication at all that it is flat, hence calling it flat is extremely dishonest.
Regardless, that would be the surface not Earth.
-
There is no indication it isn't.
Sure there is. This boundary is in every direction.
i.e. it curves around us.
If we're on its surface, how is it "around us"?
Also, I specifically asked:
How can you say that the boundary at the point where Earth is rendered is curved? You can't.
Please answer this very simple question.
-
If we're on its surface, how is it "around us"?
There you go failing to understand yet again.
We are not on its surface.
The information of us is encoded on its surface.
Also, I specifically asked:
I don't really give a damn as it is still completely irrelevant and you still don't seem to understand it at all.
The holographic principle does not say Earth is a point on the surface.
It says it is a hologram produced by information on the surface, not a point on the surface.
As such, your question makes no sense.
-
The point was if you were travelling at the speed of light, due to time no longer being a thing, literally every point in the universe is on top of each other. You could travel one end of the universe to the other instantaneously. There is no curvature to 'go around'.
Sure, time is no longer a thing.
But only massless objects like photons can travel at the speed of light and they certainly do not always "travel one end of the universe to the other".
If a photon strikes a material object it could travel through it but is usually either reflected or simply ceases to exist.
The photon can't "magically" travel unimpeded.
You are missing the point. I use photon as an example because everyone is familiar with them and because they travel at a speed where time is no longer part of the equation. Obviously it is likely there will be obstacles in their way across the universe, but every possible point to point anywhere in the universe the photon from its own 'perspective' takes zero time to get there. For failing to grasp such a simple concept and theory I'm afraid I'll have to add you to my signature too.
You claimed that,
"You could travel one end of the universe to the other instantaneously. There is no curvature to 'go around'." Which is clearly not true.
A photon might only travel a fraction of a millimetre before being anhialated.
That might be the end of its universe, but that hardly qualifies as "one end of the universe to the other".
Some people seem to have their head so high in the clouds that they are of no earthly use.
But what has all this to do with the shape of a huge physical object like the earth anyway. What about sticking to our reality for a change?
By the way, I'm not here to win or lose at a personal level, I'm a bit past caring about that.
I'm far more concerned with those that look in seeing proper explanations for what they see about them.
So you big-note yourself all you like if it makes you feel more important.
But I'm not quite as "closed minded" as you like to make out.
I'm quite open to more than the four dimensions of spacetime as an explanation of why certain things (like gravitation) happen.
It is also always possibly that there is one or more dimensions that has "access" to all of our "spacetime" simultaneously - maybe it's a spiritual realm?
I am, however, quite confident that we know how these things behave, at least at a local level - and my local level more or less extends to the "nearer" stars.
-
The holographic principle does not say Earth is a point on the surface.
It says it is a hologram produced by information on the surface, not a point on the surface.
Thank you for providing an actual rebuttal.
Yes, the Earth is a hologram produced by information on the surface (in this theory). So are you saying that since the hologram looks curved, the actual Earth is? So the hologram is the actual Earth? Because I, and most scientists, would say that if you took away the hologram, the information would still go on, indicating that the information is the actual Earth.
Or, to put it another way, if I switch my TV to Starman footage, is the actual rocket on my television? Or is it where the information for that image of a rocket originates?
-
So are you saying that since the hologram looks curved, the actual Earth is?
The "actual" Earth would be the holographic projection of Earth.
Because I, and most scientists, would say that if you took away the hologram, the information would still go on, indicating that the information is the actual Earth.
I highly doubt most scientists will agree. It completely ignores emergent phenomenon.
What you are suggesting is akin to saying if you build a house out of lego, and then dismantle it, as the lego is still there, that must be the house.
When in reality, it is now just a bunch of lego bricks. If you build it into something else that doesn't make that something else the house.
Or, to put it another way, if I switch my TV to Starman footage, is the actual rocket on my television? Or is it where the information for that image of a rocket originates?
Notice how this doesn't even match?
The rocket is the rocket itself.
The information being projected to your TV is information that is captured as a view of the rocket.
This information is transmitted and used in your TV to produce an image.
The image on your TV is not the rocket.
The information used to make the image is not the rocket.
What you are suggesting is more akin to suggesting the rocket itself is the image of the rocket you see on your TV.
-
Or, to put it another way, if I switch my TV to Starman footage, is the actual rocket on my television? Or is it where the information for that image of a rocket originates?
I've seen cats and dogs confused about this but never real people.
-
Because I, and most scientists, would say that if you took away the hologram, the information would still go on, indicating that the information is the actual Earth.
I highly doubt most scientists will agree. It completely ignores emergent phenomenon.
What you are suggesting is akin to saying if you build a house out of lego, and then dismantle it, as the lego is still there, that must be the house.
The information encoding the house is no longer directly there. Therefore the house is no longer there. I'm glad we agree that things don't exist if there's no information for them.
Here's a video which pretty concisely explains the holographic principle:
(http://)
From the wikipedia article on the holographic principle:
"In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon..."
I agree that 'two-dimensional' doesn't necessarily mean flat, but nor does it necessarily mean curved either, and so romanticism dictates I pick flat. Notice how the people in the video, also romantic sceptics, also describe it as 'flat'.
-
The information encoding the house is no longer directly there. Therefore the house is no longer there. I'm glad we agree that things don't exist if there's no information for them.
Sure there is. It exists in your mind at the very least, often it can also be found in an instruction manual.
You also seem ignorant of the idea of information in the universe, yet refer to the black hole information paradox.
According to physics, information cannot be destroyed. So how did the information for the house magically cease to exist?
All the information is still there, it is just no longer arranged to form a house.
The information itself is not the house. The way it is arranged is.
The point of this was to show an emergent property.
Here's a video which pretty concisely explains the holographic principle:
(http://)
The vast majority of the video is just a complete waste of time. You might want to add concise to the list of words you clearly don't understand.
I agree that 'two-dimensional' doesn't necessarily mean flat, but nor does it necessarily mean curved either, and so romanticism dictates I pick flat.
No, being a pathetic troll would dictate that.
It requires ignoring what is meant by various words and because it doesn't specifically say it is flat, you are going to pretend it can be flat.
You know, kind of like if they said 2D information on the surface of a sphere. They didn't say it can't be flat so it can be right? NO!
The cosmological horizon is all around us.
If you bothered watching the video and understanding the holographic principle you would see that it completely surrounds the universe.
The only way to do that is with a round object.
Notice how the people in the video, also romantic sceptics, also describe it as 'flat'.
There is no indication that they are romantics or sceptics.
They erroneously referred to it is flat. What they meant was 2D.
This is quite apparent with their comparison and depiction of it.
-
The information encoding the house is no longer directly there. Therefore the house is no longer there. I'm glad we agree that things don't exist if there's no information for them.
Sure there is. It exists in your mind at the very least, often it can also be found in an instruction manual.
You also seem ignorant of the idea of information in the universe, yet refer to the black hole information paradox.
According to physics, information cannot be destroyed. So how did the information for the house magically cease to exist?
All the information is still there, it is just no longer arranged to form a house.
The information itself is not the house. The way it is arranged is.
The point of this was to show an emergent property.
This is why I used the term "directly", but I apologise, I admit I worded that very poorly and my example was critically flawed. I'll give a better one:
If I built a simulation of a LEGO building on my computer (Using LEGO Digital Designer - a very cool program by the way), then I projected an image of that building onto a wall, which is the real building? The one on the wall, or the one held inside my computer? (or more accurately, held as physical information on a chip which the computer interprets as a digital representation)
The vast majority of the video is just a complete waste of time. You might want to add concise to the list of words you clearly don't understand.
I'm sorry you feel science is a waste of your time.
If you bothered watching the video and understanding the holographic principle you would see that it completely surrounds the universe.
The only way to do that is with a round object.
It's impossible to completely surround something with something that isn't round? Guess I'd better stop putting water in my recangular ice tray, since it's just going to all flow out. Is there any reason why the universe can't be cube-shaped?
-
If I built a simulation of a LEGO building on my computer (Using LEGO Digital Designer - a very cool program by the way), then I projected an image of that building onto a wall, which is the real building? The one on the wall, or the one held inside my computer? (or more accurately, held as physical information on a chip which the computer interprets as a digital representation)
None of them are a real building.
You have the projection of a building.
You have a computer model of a building.
You have the information that represents the computer model.
It's impossible to completely surround something with something that isn't round? Guess I'd better stop putting water in my recangular ice tray, since it's just going to all flow out. Is there any reason why the universe can't be cube-shaped?
Fine, perhaps I shouldn't have said round.
It is impossible to completely surround something with something that is flat.
Is that better?
A cube shaped universe still isn't flat.
Each face may be flat, but the surface of the cube as a single entity is not flat.
And from a technically sense, the corners would be round, even if they have infinite curvature.
P.S. You don't need to completely surround water to stop it flowing out.
-
If I built a simulation of a LEGO building on my computer (Using LEGO Digital Designer - a very cool program by the way), then I projected an image of that building onto a wall, which is the real building? The one on the wall, or the one held inside my computer? (or more accurately, held as physical information on a chip which the computer interprets as a digital representation)
None of them are a real building.
So in the holographic principle, nothing is real? It's all just projections and information in that theory too.
Fine, perhaps I shouldn't have said round.
It is impossible to completely surround something with something that is flat.
Is that better?
A cube shaped universe still isn't flat.
Each face may be flat, but the surface of the cube as a single entity is not flat.
Okay, so my point here is that the area of the surface that the Earth's information is encoded on could be flat (like one side of a cube). It's equally likely as any specific curvature. There's no way to disprove that currently.
-
If I built a simulation of a LEGO building on my computer (Using LEGO Digital Designer - a very cool program by the way), then I projected an image of that building onto a wall, which is the real building? The one on the wall, or the one held inside my computer? (or more accurately, held as physical information on a chip which the computer interprets as a digital representation)
None of them are a real building.
So in the holographic principle, nothing is real? It's all just projections and information in that theory too.
Fine, perhaps I shouldn't have said round.
It is impossible to completely surround something with something that is flat.
Is that better?
A cube shaped universe still isn't flat.
Each face may be flat, but the surface of the cube as a single entity is not flat.
Okay, so my point here is that the area of the surface that the Earth's information is encoded on could be flat (like one side of a cube). It's equally likely as any specific curvature. There's no way to disprove that currently.
This is of course your interpretation of a theory that in all honesty and reality you neither understand or actually know little about. This is clearly demonstrated by your previous posts. Why do you imagine you can apply this particular cosmic theory to a 3D computer model or even the shape of the earth. Rather than just quoting the term, why not demonstrate any real understanding on the subject you may have. In addition do you think or even imagine the moon is flat?....or how about the sun, do you think that too is flat?
In which way do you imagine the information relating to the earth has been encoded? In your own words please.
-
In your own words please.
It's called bait.
-
In your own words please.
It's called bait.
It's called demonstrating knowledge.